Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Re P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cobb J, 14 June 2021)Parental Responsibility – Circumcision – 21-month-old Muslim child – Raised in non-Muslim household of extended family – Mother sought...
R (Care Proceedings Joinder of Foster Carers) [2021] EWCA Civ 875
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Baker, Carr, Lewis LJJ, 15 June 2021)Practice and Procedure – Care proceedings – Foster carers joined as party to care proceedings – AppealThe...
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
View all articles

COSTS: Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor v Minkin [2012] EWCA Civ 546

Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Slug : 2012EWCACiv546
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 8, 2012, 09:07 AM
Article ID : 98781

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Stanley Burnton, Elias LJJ, Senior Costs Judge Master Hurst; 1 May 2012)

The husband instructed solicitors during divorce proceedings and received a quote of £3000 plus vat for representation in hearing of his wife's application for a non-molestation and ouster order. Proceedings were far more complicated than anticipated and the solicitors sent the husband a bill for £5,472.50. The husband refused to pay and the solicitors ceased working on his behalf. The costs judge found the husband had reasonable justification for not paying his bill because the solicitors had suspended work on the husband's case and the bill exceeded the estimate.

The solicitors' appeal was upheld because the husband had no advance warning that the bill would exceed the estimate and the solicitors in breach of contract in terminating their services.

The appeal to the Court of appeal was allowed. The solicitors' standard terms of business included with the initial quote stated that the quote was not fixed or binding and could vary depending on the complexity of the case. It was not reasonable for the husband to expect the solicitors to wait for payment until he had a costs order in his favour. The unexpected complications could not justify non-payment of the bill. The husband was obliged to pay as per the terms of business.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from